Judgment : This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they arise out of the same judgment and award dated 12/7/2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao, (hereinafter referred to as the reference Court), in Land Acquisition Case No. 178/1990. 2. The Government had acquired land for construction of fish market at Margao, in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”, for short). Notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 24/7/1980. An area of 735 square metres out of Chalta No. 76 of P. T. Sheet No. 253 belonging to the original applicant Mrs. Savitribai R. Lotlikar was acquired along with land belonging to some other persons. By award dated 16/2/1982, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O, for short) offered the market rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre, for the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the original applicant filed application, before the L.A.O., under Section 18 of the Act and that gave rise to the L.A.C. No. 178/1990. 3. In the said reference application, the original applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per square metre stating that the L.A.O. did not consider the potentialities of the said land and the use for which the same was being put and the value of the adjoining lands and the construction already existing therein. 4. The original applicant died during the pendency of the reference and the applicants no. 1(a) to 1(g) and respondents no. 3(a) to 3(g) are her legal representatives. The said legal representatives shall hereinafter be referred to as the applicants and the Land Acquisition Officer and the Margao Municipal Council, who were the contesting respondents in the said Land Acquisition Case shall hereinafter be referred to as the respondents. 5. The applicants examined Mr. Manohar Lotlikar, the applicant no.1(c) as AW.1. 3(a) to 3(g) are her legal representatives. The said legal representatives shall hereinafter be referred to as the applicants and the Land Acquisition Officer and the Margao Municipal Council, who were the contesting respondents in the said Land Acquisition Case shall hereinafter be referred to as the respondents. 5. The applicants examined Mr. Manohar Lotlikar, the applicant no.1(c) as AW.1. He produced the sale deed dated 4/4/1983 as Exhibit AW.1/A and an agreement dated 29/3/1984, as Exhibit AW.1/B. The applicants examined one builder by name Anil Amonkar as AW.2, who produced an Occupancy Certificate as Exhibit AW.2/A, an agreement dated 28/12/1983 as Exhibit AW.2/B, an application to submit revised plan addressed to the Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council as Exhibit AW.2/C and another Occupancy Certificate as Exhibit AW.2/D. The applicants also examined one registered valuer namely Mahendra Kakule, who produced his valuation report as AW.3/A. Lastly, one Subhash Trivikram Naik Gaunekar, a builder was examined by the applicants as AW.4. The second set of applicants who were transposed as respondents no. 3(a) to 3(g) in the said Land Acquisition Case examined an architect and registered valuer by name Subhashchandra Narayan Bhobe as RW.1. The respondents then examined a surveyor of the Margao Municipal Council by name Pedro M. Coelho as RW.2. He produced a survey plan of various chalta numbers of P. T. Sheet no. 253 as Exhibit 64, a letter written by Antonio Borges Sa to the Margao Municipal Council as Exhibit 65, the Consent Terms and Compromise Decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.160/80 as Exhibit 66, a certified copy of the sale deed dated 21/9/1978 as Exhibit 67, a copy of licence dated 6/12/1980 in favour of one Jagdish Katkar as Exhibit 68, a copy of letter issued by said Jadgish Katkar and others to S.P.D.A, Margao dated 31/1/1984 as Exhibit 69 and a copy of licence No. A/166/80 (renewal/86) issued in the name of K. S. Enterprises for construction of commercial/residential building dated 20/5/1985 as Exhibit 70. 6. Upon assessment of the entire evidence on record, the learned reference Court found that the sale deed produced by the applicants at Exhibit AW.1/A is dated 4/4/1983 and the agreement of sale at Exhibit AW.1/B is dated 29/3/1984. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 10/7/1980, which means that both the above transactions were post-notification. 6. Upon assessment of the entire evidence on record, the learned reference Court found that the sale deed produced by the applicants at Exhibit AW.1/A is dated 4/4/1983 and the agreement of sale at Exhibit AW.1/B is dated 29/3/1984. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 10/7/1980, which means that both the above transactions were post-notification. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “Karan Singh Vs. Union of India” ( AIR 1997 S.C. 3889 ), the learned reference Court assessed the said post-notification sale transactions with reference to the evidence on record and held that both cannot be considered for ascertaining the market value of the acquired land. Besides the above, he also found that there was no material on record to show that the sale deed plot is comparable with the acquired land. The learned reference Court found that AW.3 who is the valuer had submitted the report which is dated 10/3/2002 and had visited the acquired land few days prior to that, which means that the said report and the visit was after a gap of about 22 long years from the date of notification. Reference Court relied upon the case of “State of Goa Vs. Desiderio Menezes” (1996 Vol. 1 G.L.T. 12) and held that such belated report cannot be looked into. The reference Court further found that AW.3 passed his B.E. examination in the year 1984 and at the time of the notification under section 4 of the Act i.e, in the year 1980, he was only a student. The reference Court, therefore, held that the valuation report is not reliable. The learned reference Court found that AW.1 had contradicted his own statements made earlier and AW.2 had contradicted the testimony of AW.1. It was further found that AW.4, a Civil Engineer had not submitted any report and he was approached by the applicants only six months prior to his deposition. His testimony did not inspire confidence. RW.1, who is also an expert had also not prepared any report of valuation. His evidence was not considered by the reference Court, as he was examined by those legal representatives of the original applicant who did not join as applicants but were transposed as respondents no. 3(a) to 3(g) and notices were issued to them after transposition. RW.1, who is also an expert had also not prepared any report of valuation. His evidence was not considered by the reference Court, as he was examined by those legal representatives of the original applicant who did not join as applicants but were transposed as respondents no. 3(a) to 3(g) and notices were issued to them after transposition. The reference Court found that the evidence of RW. 2, the witness of the respondents was reliable. The reference Court considered various judgments of the Apex Court, relied upon by the applicants and pertaining to the principles of determination of the market value and found that the applicants have failed to prove that the acquired land was having more value than that awarded by the L.A.O. The reference, therefore, came to be rejected. The applicants no. 1(a) to 1(g) have filed the First Appeal no. 250/2004 whereas the respondent no.1 (a) has filed the First Appeal No. 257/2005. 7. Mr. Almeida, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1(a), who is the appellant of First appeal No. 257/2005, submitted that the plan of acquisition shows that the acquired land which is near Gandhi Market, Margao, is in a prime developed area. He submitted that though the sale deed relied upon by the applicants is dated 4/4/1983, however, the same was preceded by an agreement of the year 1980. He invited my attention to the deposition of AW.1 where he has stated that though the sale deed was executed in the year 1983, however, the parties had entered into an agreement prior to 1980, which fact has not been challenged in the cross-examination. He further invited my attention to the sale deed at Exhibit AW.1/A, which mentions that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was already received by the vendors. He, therefore, contended that the sale deed dated 4/4/1983 has been erroneously discarded by the reference Court by holding that it is post-notification. He submitted that since there was agreement in respect of the same sale deed plot which was executed prior to the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act, the same cannot be termed as post notification. He further submitted that the said sale deed land as well as the acquired land are located in central commercial zone and had the benefit of same F.A.R. of 2.5. He further submitted that the said sale deed land as well as the acquired land are located in central commercial zone and had the benefit of same F.A.R. of 2.5. He further pointed out that there is no denial about the existence of the unacquired portion of the same property in which there is a building with shops since 1946. The learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla(D) by LRs. and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others” [2012 DGLS (Soft) 320]. He contended that judicial notice has to be taken of the fact that the growth in Goa and more particularly in Margao is by leaps and bounds. He further submitted that since admittedly the plot of the sale deed dated 4/4/1983 was purchased with encumbrance of houses occupied by tenants, the rate of Rs. 800/- per square meter should be doubled and hence to be taken as Rs. 1600/- per square meter. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicants wanted oral leave to produce on record the agreement of 1980. However, on the subsequent date, he made a statement that the applicants are not in a position to produce the said agreement. He, however, submitted that the evidence on record is more than sufficient to prove that the market value of the acquired land was at least Rs. 1200/- per square metre, as claimed by the applicants. Learned counsel relied upon a common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 208 of 2007(“V. M. Salgaocar & Brother Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Collector and LAO for the State of Goa”) and First Appeal No. 228 of 2008 on the point of principles to be followed for determining the market value of the acquired land. 8. Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants no. 1(a) to 1(g), who are the appellants of First Appeal No. 250 of 2004 adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Almeida. 9. Per contra, Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents no. 3(a) to 3(g) had themselves filed an application before the reference Court stating that they were not happy with the evidence produced by the applicants no. 1(a) to 1(g). Almeida. 9. Per contra, Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents no. 3(a) to 3(g) had themselves filed an application before the reference Court stating that they were not happy with the evidence produced by the applicants no. 1(a) to 1(g). He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that there was no access to the acquired land. It is contended that the plot of the sale deed dated 4/4/1983 is a corner plot having roads on two sides, and situated in a prime location of Margao City. According to him, in Goa prices of land go on changing from area to area and the entire piece of city like Margao cannot be considered as similar and of the same value everywhere. He submitted that the applicants have not produced any evidence to show the similarity of the land which is the subject matter of the sale deed dated 4/4/1983 with the acquired land. He further submitted that in the case of “V. M. Salgaonkar & Brother Pvt. Ltd” (supra), relied upon by the applicants, the value of the acquired land which was situated at Margao was held to be Rs.796/- per square meter, as on 2/3/2000. He submitted that the relevant date for determination of the market value in the present case is 24/7/1980, which is 20 years back and if appropriate deductions are made, in the market value of Rs. 796/-, for filling the gap of 20 years, the value would be less than Rs. 200/- per square meter. According to the learned counsel, the central commercial zone and the P.D.A regulations all came afterwards and even the Gandhi Market was inaugurated on 2/10/1980, which is after the acquisition. He pointed out that as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, AW.3 was only 17 years of age and he had valued the land after 22 years of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He submitted that AW.3 will not fit within the parameters of a reliable witness. He further submitted that since the alleged agreement of the year 1980 is not produced, it cannot be said that there was such an agreement as alleged. He submitted that AW.3 will not fit within the parameters of a reliable witness. He further submitted that since the alleged agreement of the year 1980 is not produced, it cannot be said that there was such an agreement as alleged. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the price mentioned in the sale deed was the same, as was mentioned in the said agreement. He submitted that no party to the said sale deed or to the alleged agreement has been examined and, therefore, even the execution of the alleged agreement is not proved. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy” [ (2010) 9 SCC 118 ]. According to him, the post notification transactions have been rightly ignored by the reference Court. He relied upon judgment dated 8/7/2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 206/2005, which pertains to the acquired land situated at Sonsodo, Village Raia, Salcette Taluka, close to Margao city, wherein the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was 4/2/1993. The Division Bench has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.19.50 square metres. He also relied upon judgment dated 12/8/2011 of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 98 of 2005, which pertains to the land acquired from Malbhat, Margao and the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was 9/8/1982. The market value was fixed by the Division Bench at Rs. 94/- per square meter. He also relied upon judgment dated 16/8/2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 142 of 2007, which pertains to the acquired land situated at Khareband, Margao and the date of notification was 20/6/2002. The Division Bench fixed the market value at Rs. 292/- per square meter. The learned Counsel submitted that the above Judgments reveal that in the year 1980, the value of land anywhere near the acquired land in Margao would not be more than Rs. 200/- per square meter. The learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments: (i) “P. Ram Reddy and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad and ors.” (1995) 2 SCC 305 ; and (ii) “Subh Ram and Others Vs. 200/- per square meter. The learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments: (i) “P. Ram Reddy and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad and ors.” (1995) 2 SCC 305 ; and (ii) “Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and anr.” (2010) 1 SCC 444. He submitted that the judgment in the case of “SabhiaMohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla” (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He, therefore, submitted that there is utter failure on the part of the applicants to prove that the market value of the acquired land was more than that awarded by the L.A.O. He, therefore, urged that both the appeals be dismissed. 10. I have perused the original record and proceedings and have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also the judgments relied upon by them. 11. The point that arises for determination is whether the learned reference Court has erred in rejecting the reference and if yes as to what should be the true market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act? 12. The well known methods of valuation to be utilised for determination of the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Even two or all the methods, if available, can be taken into account. In the case of “State of U.P. & anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh”, [II(1996) CLT 10 (SC)], the Apex Court has held that it is settled law that in reference under Section 18, claimant being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, when the proceedings are taken under Section 20 of the Act, burden is always on the claimant like plaintiff to adduce reliable and acceptable evidence to prove proper, just and adequate compensation to the acquired land. If such an evidence was adduced, burden shifts on to the State to disprove it. 13. If such an evidence was adduced, burden shifts on to the State to disprove it. 13. AW.3, who is the Consulting Engineer and Government Registered Valuerhas prepared the valuation report which is a part of Exhibit AW.3/38-colly along with the plan and he has valued the acquired land at Rs.1350/- per square metre. Though the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is 24/7/1980, he has valued the land as on 12/10/1981, which is the date of publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act. As has been rightly held by the reference Court the valuation report cannot at all be considered. The valuation report is dated 10/3/2002. According to AW.3, he visited the property recently. The relevant date for determination of the market value of the acquired land is 10/7/1980. AW.3, therefore, had visited the acquired land about 22 years after the said relevant date and had prepared the valuation report thereafter. Such a grossly belated valuation cannot at all be relied upon. The learned reference court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in “State of Goa Vs. Desiderio Menezes”, reported in [1996 Vol. 1 G.L.T. 12), wherein it has been held that when the report is belated i.e. issued after a period of five years or more, such report cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the valuation of the acquired land. 14. Besides the above, AW.3 had passed his B.E. Examination in the year 1984. Therefore, on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, AW.3 was not an Engineer or Valuer. He gave evidence on 8/4/2002 on which day he was about 39 years of age. Thus, he was a student of just about 17 years of age, on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The valuation report prepared by AW.3, therefore, cannot be looked into. 15. AW. 2 is a builder and promoter having business in the name of K. S. Enterprises. According to him, he had developed the property belonging to Katkars and that the construction licence was obtained in the year 1980 and the building was completed within four years. The valuation report prepared by AW.3, therefore, cannot be looked into. 15. AW. 2 is a builder and promoter having business in the name of K. S. Enterprises. According to him, he had developed the property belonging to Katkars and that the construction licence was obtained in the year 1980 and the building was completed within four years. He has stated that the acquired land is about 50 metres away from Katkars' property and that considering that Katkars' property was in central commercial zone and the FAR was 2.5, he had valued Katkars' property at Rs. 2500/- per square metre. He has stated that the acquired land may also be in the same zone. He has stated that the structure of Gandhi market was ready in the year 1980. However, a perusal of his cross-examination reveals that this witness is not telling the truth. The agreement with Katkars is dated 28/12/1983, which is at Exhibit AW.2/B. No agreement prior to that date is produced. The occupancy certificate in respect of that building at Exhibit AW.2/A/35 shows that the same was issued by Margao Municipal council in the year 1994. This means that the building was not complete in all respects till the year 1994. RW.2, the witness of the respondents has produced the licence issued in favour of Jagdish Katkar as Exhibit 68 which is dated 31/1/1984 and another licence as Exhibit 70 which is dated 20/5/1985.The construction licence was renewed from time to time. Aw.2 is not a trust worthy witness and is rightly not believed by the reference Court. 16. AW.1 has relied upon the sale deed dated 4/4/1983, which is at Exhibit AW.1/A. By this sale deed, land admeasuring 1705 square metres, containing houses occupied by tenants, situated at Margao, within the limits of Margao Municipality was sold for a price of Rs.13,64,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 800/- per square metre. The property was sold along with encumbrance of houses occupied by tenants against whom eviction proceedings were filed and were pending. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that since there were tenants in the property, the property was sold for a less price, taking note of the encumbrances and if the said land was free from encumbrances, the price would have been double. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that since there were tenants in the property, the property was sold for a less price, taking note of the encumbrances and if the said land was free from encumbrances, the price would have been double. Naturally, when land with houses occupied by tenants is purchased, the price would be less than the price of a property without any encumbrances. It appears that on the basis of the above principle, the learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the price of the sale deed land, in order to bring it at par with a freehold land should be doubled. I am not inclined to accept the submission that in the present case appreciation of 50% will have to be made in order to arrive at the market value of the land which was freehold. In this particular Sale deed, the purchaser is Alcon Real Estate Private Ltd. engaged in the business of real estate and construction of buildings and had purchased this land for the purpose of constructing buildings. It is specifically stated in the sale deed that the market value of the property is Rs. 13,59,000/- as, valued by Government registered valuer and Engineer, Shri S. N. Bhende. 17. The sale deed at Exhibit AW.1/A is dated 4/4/1983 and the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is dated 10/7/1980, which means that the sale deed is more than two and half years after the date of notification. In the case of “Administrator Genl. Of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi” ( AIR 1988 SC 943 ), the Apex Court has held that prices fetched for lands similar to acquired land with similar advantages and potentialities at or about time of preliminary notification constitute best evidence. It has been further held that subsequent transactions which are proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for the purposes of determining whether there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further, under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. Further, under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. It has been further held that this principle can be appealed to only where there is evidence that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum and the burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. In the case of “Karan Singh Vs. Union of India” ( AIR 1997 S.C. 3889 ), the Apex Court has held that in order to rely on post notification transaction of sale of land, one of the condition that must be satisfied is that it must be shown by reliable evidence that there was no appreciation of the value of land during the period of issue of notification under section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale, which is sought to be relied upon for the purposes of fixing the market value of the acquired land. It has been held that if the claimant relies on post notification transaction, the burden is upon him to show that the price of the land remained static and there was no upward rise in the price of the land during the period of issue of the notification under section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale. In the case of “A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy” [ (2010) 9 SCC 118 ], it has been reiterated that a sale deed which is dated post notification is generally ignored, unless, evidence is led to show that there was no increase in price despite such acquisition. It is observed that the market value of the adjoining land would generally go up after the acquisition and such post notification transaction may not be a sound criterion to determine and assess value of the acquired land. In the present case, first of all, the sale transaction is dated 4/4/1983 i.e. about two and half years after the date of preliminary notification and not proximate in time. 18. In the present case, first of all, the sale transaction is dated 4/4/1983 i.e. about two and half years after the date of preliminary notification and not proximate in time. 18. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the sale deed dated 4/4/1983 was preceded by an agreement of sale made in the year 1980. It is seen that AW.1 has deposed that though the sale deed was executed in the year 1983, the parties had entered into the agreement prior to 1980. Thus, it cannot be said that the agreement, if at all it was there, was of the year 1980. It was of some year prior to 1980, which year is not known. Therefore, merely because there is no denial to the above statement of AW.1, that does not mean that there was an agreement of sale entered into in the year 1980. It is not stated by AW.1 that in the year 1980, the price was fixed at Rs. 800/- per square metre and that the sale deed for the same price was executed in 1983. In the said sale deed, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, there is a mention that a consideration of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was already received by the vendors from the purchasers, as earnest money. However, unfortunately, it is not mentioned in the sale deed as to on which date, month or year the said consideration of Rs. 2.00,000/- was already received by the vendors. As has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the prices of land adjoining the acquired land had remained static and there was no upward rise in the price of the land during the period of issue of notification under section 4 of the Act and on the date of transaction of sale. The land was acquired for construction of fish market. The evidence on record further reveals that Gandhi market had come into operation, close to the acquired land sometime in the year 1980. There was bound to be an upward surge in prices of lands near the fish market and Gandhi Market. The applicants were given an opportunity to produce the agreement of 1980 if really there was one in their possession. There was bound to be an upward surge in prices of lands near the fish market and Gandhi Market. The applicants were given an opportunity to produce the agreement of 1980 if really there was one in their possession. However, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that they are unable to produce the said agreement. Further, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no evidence on record regarding the comparability of the acquired land with the land in the said sale deed dated 4/4/1983, at Exhibit AW.1/A. I am therefore, of the view that the said sale deed dated 4/4/1983 cannot be considered and the same has been rightly ignored by the reference Court. There is no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that the reference Court erred in holding that the sale deed at Exhibit AW.1/A could not be considered for ascertaining the market value of the acquired land. 19. The next document relied upon the applicants is Articles of Agreement dated 29/3/1984, which is at Exhibit AW.1/B. Admittedly, this agreement is more than three and half years after the date of publication of preliminary notification and further, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the prices of lands adjoining the acquired land had remained static and there was no upward rise in the price of the land during the period of issue of notification under section 4 of the Act and on the date of transaction of said agreement. AW.1 has merely produced this agreement, without giving any details of the land which is subject matter of the same, and without stating as to how the same is comparable with the acquired land. The said agreement reveals that the property which is subject matter of the agreement is situated near Margao police station and the said property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 20,00,000/-. A perusal of the agreement reveals that right to 3407/3970th of the plot of land admeasuring 1254 square metres was agreed to be sold. It was further agreed by the purchaser that they would transfer right to 107/3970th and to build a flat for Ms. Quadros, in consideration of her vacating the tenanted premises. 20,00,000/-. A perusal of the agreement reveals that right to 3407/3970th of the plot of land admeasuring 1254 square metres was agreed to be sold. It was further agreed by the purchaser that they would transfer right to 107/3970th and to build a flat for Ms. Quadros, in consideration of her vacating the tenanted premises. It was also agreed by the purchaser to construct for the vendor a residential unit with an area of 563 square metres in the first floor of the building to be erected by the purchasers. Therefore, such an agreement cannot at all be useful for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Besides the above, AW.1 does not know as to where the said property is located and as to what is the distance between the said property which is subject matter of the agreement Exhibit AW.1/B and the acquired land. The said agreement has been rightly discarded by the reference Court. 20. AW.4, a Civil Engineer, is one of the partners of M/s Sunivas Realtors, which is engaged in construction activities. He has spoken about the articles of agreement dated 29/3/1984, which is at Exhibit AW.1/B. According to him, the acquired land is near Gandhi Market at Margao and lies in the Commercial Zone and that it had better potentialities than the land agreed to be purchased by his firm. He has stated that they agreed to purchase the property at the price of Rs. 2500/-per square metre and that price of the property of applicants should be at least 2500/-per square metre. In his cross-examination, AW.4 has admitted that the plot agreed to be purchased by them is bounded on west and south by public road and that a plot which is bounded on two sides by road has got more building potentialities and can get better market price than the plot which is bounded only on one side by road or not bounded on any side by road. He has stated that he saw the applicants' property for the first time about few months back and that there was already a building constructed by Municipal Council. Therefore, he cannot know the nature of the property of the applicants at the time of acquisition. The testimony of AW.4 is of no help to ascertain the market value of the acquired land. 21. Therefore, he cannot know the nature of the property of the applicants at the time of acquisition. The testimony of AW.4 is of no help to ascertain the market value of the acquired land. 21. The next witness of the applicants is RW.1 who is an architect and registered valuer. He has valued the acquired land as in 1980 at Rs. 1000/-per square metre. This valuation is made by RW.1 in his affidavit itself and no valuation report has been prepared by him. His cross-examination reveals that the respondent no. 3(d) approached him sometime in October/November 2000. with regard to the present matter. He has referred to some agreement of August 1973 and of October 1976 which are not on record. He has also relied upon the agreement dated 29/3/1984 at Exhibit AW/1/B, which is not at all fit to be considered. Thus, valuation made by RW.1, besides being much belated, is otherwise not reliable. 22. It is seen that AW.1 in his deposition has made irresponsible and false statements. For example, he has stated that Gandhi market which is adjacent to the acquired land was started in the year 1976 and that all the shops situated in the said Market were already occupied and were being run as on the date of notification. It is seen that the evidence on record proves beyond doubt that Gandhi market was started in the year 1980. AW.1 stated that in the unacquired portion of their property there is a building and there are several shops in this building since 1946. However, there is no material on record in support of such a claim. On the contrary, the cross-examination of AW.1 reveals that the above statement of AW.1 is not correct. It is further seen that AW.1 has deposed that there is a municipal road between the acquired land and the remaining part of their property and that the said road was tarred in the year 1970. The cross examination of AW.2 reveals that there was no tar road in existence, but there was only a khacha access. 23. On the contrary, the evidence of RW.2, the Surveyor of Margao Municipal Council has placed on record relevant facts and he turned out to be a reliable witness. The cross examination of RW.2 reveals that he is a truthful witness. 23. On the contrary, the evidence of RW.2, the Surveyor of Margao Municipal Council has placed on record relevant facts and he turned out to be a reliable witness. The cross examination of RW.2 reveals that he is a truthful witness. He has explained about the facilities and amenities which were available near the acquired land at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act. According to him, at the time of acquisition, the acquired land was not accessible by road. He has produced a letter written by one Antonio Borges De Sa, dated 13/7/1983, as Exhibit 65, raising objections with regard to the acquisition of the property under chalta no. 40 of P. T. Sheet no.253 which shows that prior to the acquisition, there was no tar road existing in the said plot. 24. RW.2 has produced the deed of sale and mortgage dated 21/9/1978 as Exhibit 67. By this sale deed a property known as “Calcondem” situated at Navelim, Margao within the limits of Margao Municipal Council bearing chalta no.252 of P.T. Sheet no.253 of Margao City survey and admeasuring 667 sq.metres was sold for Rs.45,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 67.47 per square metre. 25. The judgment of this Court in the case of “V.M. Salgaoncar & Brother Pvt. Ltd.” in First Appeals No. 208/2007 and 228/2008 has been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, in order to appraise this Court of the principles to be followed for determination of the market value of the acquired land and not for calculation of the market value by comparing the land concerned in the said case with the acquired land. However, it is to be kept in mind that the land which was subject matter of the said appeals is also situated at Margao and was acquired for construction of Ring Road from Damodar College to Railway Gate on NH-17. The date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act was 2/3/2000. The said land in Margao city was valued at Rs.796/- per square metre only. The acquisition concerned in the present case is of the year 1980, which is 20 years back. The date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act was 2/3/2000. The said land in Margao city was valued at Rs.796/- per square metre only. The acquisition concerned in the present case is of the year 1980, which is 20 years back. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon a judgment of the Division bench of this Court, dated 8/7/2010, in First Appeal No. 206/2005, wherein land situated at Sonsodo, village Raia, Salcete Taluka, which is close to Margao city was acquired for garbage dumping yard and the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 4/2/1993. The Division Bench fixed the market value at Rs.19.50/- per square metre. In First Appeal No. 98/2005, land was acquired for parking lot at Malbhat Margao, vide notification published in the Official Gazette dated 9/8/1982 and by judgment dated 12/8/2011, the Division Bench of this Court fixed the market value at Rs. 94/- per square metre. He has also produced a copy of the judgment dated 16/8/2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 140/2007, in respect of land situated at Khareband, Margao which was acquired for construction of road starting from Roque Correira road, Khareband to Sirvodem at Margao in Salcete Taluka. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 20/6/2002. The Division Bench fixed the market value at Rs. 292/-per square metre. Thus, it can be understood that in or about the year 1980, the value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land, in Margao could not have been more than Rs. 200/-per square metre, as has been offered by the Land acquisition Officer. 26. The impugned judgment and award by which the reference has been rejected cannot, therefore, be called as erroneous. The reference court has considered all the material that was produced by the applicants. Hence, there is no scope for interference. 27. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. However, with no order as to costs.